On Mar 12, 10:07 am, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote: > It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6 > whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation > of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep an open mind about > shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment > in protocol design. Somewhere along the line I started publicly > referring to it as "sham6". I'm sure I'm not the only person who came > to that conclusion. >
I thought the IETF required two inter-operable implementations for protocols. Or was that just for standards-track stuff? Anyway, the effort involved in getting Shim6 implemented globally on all devices would have been nearly as large as switching over all applications from TCP to a protocol with a "proper" session layer, like SCTP. I believe there are libraries that wrap SCTP and make it look like TCP to legacy applications; wouldn't that have been a better approach?